A man was forced to undergo eight intimate exams including digital penetration of his anus, three enemas, two X-rays and a colonoscopy without any warrants and returning no drugs. Does the bill of rights even mean anything in a country where things like this happen?

Specifically, I'm referring to the 4th Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It's the Bill of Rights that provides the cause of action when wrong things like this happen. It's what gives the victim his day in court so that he can prove his case and bring out the details to the public. I'm not sure what you mean when you ask if it means anything anymore. Of course it does! You only know about this story because the 4th amendment exists and allows the man to pursue this action.

If he proves his case, he will do a great public service by influencing the behavior of that police department.

Would knowing you had the right to a day in kangaroo court be of any comfort to you or give you any faith in your government system if someone you love had been subjected to what amounts to state backed rape? Would any amount of money compensate you for this experience?

Edit: When I read it,the bill of rights says nothing about suing after my rights are violated and more something like "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." This seems to mean no citizen should ever be subjected to unreasonable search, which I definitely think would mean intimate orifices without a Warrant, which needs Oath, nearly always a judge except in the most routine of cases.

If this is routine, then is the bill of rights utterly meaningless anymore in its intended use of protecting citizens from tyranny in the government?

Yes. Imagine this happening in the early-mid 1800's. It never would have. The man would have shot the rapist and been exonerated in court with the simple defense "Your honor, he touched my bum." Why should the anus of your Great-Great-Grandfather have more rights against undue and uncomfortable poking and prodding than your own?